An image of the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the official announcement

[frankchn]

10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!

And a stop slower at the tele-end.

The Nikon 120-300/2.8E is the same price.

 

[SwissFrank]

As much as that would sound ideal, a "normal" 1x pass through should not be possible as that would be similar to adding the R mount adapter to an existing RF lens. The only way you could do it is to add it into the lens in the first place or to have Canon replace the shiny bit on the RF400/600/800/1200 big whites. Happy to be corrected of course.

A 1.4x/2x TC would be significantly more expensive option than the current single ones but effectively just packaging the 2 into a switchable adapter. I don't know how it would get around the issue of where the TC inserts into the lens though unless it is a complete redesign. I reckon 3 times the 2x TC's price ie USD1800.

As an (non-optical) engineer I'd assume any 1x wouldn't be an empty tube but would instead have lenses.

I could see this contraption in effect being a zoom lens albeit with 3 positions, perhaps. The lenses would move around as they do in a zoom, but all lens elements would be in the optical path at all settings. It's just a poorly-informed guess though. Leica has made a couple zoom lenses for the M cameras that were like this: they were meant to be used at three specific settings though I assume you could also put it anywhere in between. I've always wondered for instance whether it was a lot better image at 28 35 and 50 than at something in-between like 31 or 41. I've seen lots of zooms that were optimized for their long end or short end or even middle, but not that had a "W"-shaped optimization where they were good, then bad, then good, then bad, then good again.

 

[AlanF]

As much as that would sound ideal, a "normal" 1x pass through should not be possible as that would be similar to adding the R mount adapter to an existing RF lens. The only way you could do it is to add it into the lens in the first place or to have Canon replace the shiny bit on the RF400/600/800/1200 big whites. Happy to be corrected of course.

A 1.4x/2x TC would be significantly more expensive option than the current single ones but effectively just packaging the 2 into a switchable adapter. I don't know how it would get around the issue of where the TC inserts into the lens though unless it is a complete redesign. I reckon 3 times the 2x TC's price ie USD1800.

You are assuming the zero position has no glass between the end of the lens and the body. The extender moves the lens away from the body so it would have to glass elements in it to refocus by that distance, which I think the FD to EF adapters have. It may alter the focal length by a tad. It will be in the Canon patent for the multi-TC.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Panasonic's lens line up is kind of a joke.
Sony's used to be but they are coming on strong.

The L mount lens line up isn’t good for sports but for almost all other types of stills and video it has a better one than than Canon imo.

Panasonic have a range of f1.8s that are optimised for video work but work great with stills too. Plus zooms with MF clutches which are also great for video work.

Sigma have a wide range of f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms in their Art range, f2 primes that are cheaper, smaller and lighter.

Leica have luxury options for those that want them.

As for this upcoming 100-300 f2.8 L be interesting to see its performance when paired with an R3, should make for an excellent combo.

 

[dslrdummy]

10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!

Variable aperture and doesn't take an extender. And those of us who have it are confined to contrast detect AF. Just saying.

 

[masterpix]

So many lenses so little bank account...

Canon will soon announce the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM, which will be the first of its kind from Canon. Sigma does have an EF 120-300mm f/2.8, but it was never that highly regarded, mostly due to autofocus performance when compared to Canon L lenses. We are told that the new lens will be

See full article...

 

[Chaitanya]

I don't have any complaints about the RF100-500mm. f7,1 at 500mm is perfectly acceptable with modern sensors and similar to EF100-400mm + 1.4TC but sharper. The trade-off of collapsible vs limited focal range with TC is a good choice for me. I haven't seen any issues/complaints about weather sealing for the external zoom

Focus breathing and whether DS is useful seem to be the only issues for RF100mm. The latter can be ignored even if it is built into the cost.
Magnification/MFD and focus speed/quietness seem to be the main benefits of RF vs EF.
Have I missed anything?

You missed focus shifting, didnt really think focus breathing was a big issue with RF100 compared to EF 100. That DS is certainly a useless feature add, as it seems like event and wedding photographers seem to avoid using that lens either carrying forward EF 100 or downright not even using it(even fellow herpers here have avoided that lens like a plague due to bad value for money compared to EF 100 which many already own and have carried forward to RF system).
More than f7.1 aperture of 100-500 its TC quirks and increased price(for owners of EF 100-400) make that lens not a good upgrade. Also TC compatibility has been removed from even RF 70-200mm lenses(EF lenses were compatible and I remember quite a few part time birders who used 2x TC with 70-200mm as it was better than 100-400 mk1 also for them 70-200 was part of their event shooting kit) if this RF 100-300 carries forward the same bad design choice of RF 70-200 with regards to TC compatibility then it is going to be a massive deal breaker for its target audience.

 

[Fischer]

Call me skeptical - but: Not even considering this before I have seen "proof" it is on par with the 300mm IS L II prime.

If it magically does this feat - AND its not a "disguised" 100-260/270/280mm lens - AND is lighter than the 300mm IS L II prime I will probably sell my RF 70-200mm IS L to fund part of the cost and be done with it.

I put the likelihood of Canon delivering a lens living up to the extraordinary claims announced <20%. Of course happy to be proven wrong one day soon.

 

[Fischer]

"Optical performance" is a bit vague. It can be a bit better in some type of CA and they can already claim it's better. The 300 prime is also an over 10 year old lens.

Maybe "old" - but still unsurpassed.

 

[photographer]

Not what I was expecting, but still looks like an interesting lens. I agree with the majority that without the integrated teleconverter, I'm not as excited about it (but still happy to see it arrive). That said, I still think that the zoom range can replace both 70-200 and 300 lenses. Maybe this will be the new zoom trinity - 15-300mm at F/2.8, at least for people with that level of income. I'm late to the mirrorless party, actually not there yet, but with 1 kid in college and second about to go to college, I'm thinking my best course of action is to be happy with my 5D4/7D2 and 300 mk ii prime (and zoom trinity) for now. I'll just have to keep window shopping for a while

I do see this lens being very relevant for the '24 Olympics, especially with the enhance autofocus features with the R3. It will also make many happy shooting school sports, indoor sports, auto sports, and portraits.

Size and weight will be important. Already 70 - 200 is too heavy for someone.

 

[whothafunk]

The RF 70-200 2.8 is definitely sharper than 300 2.8 IS USM (mark I) on both my R3 and R5. Can't see why the latest and greatest RF 100-300 couldn't achieve this either and be on par or even slightly better than the mark II.
I cannot wait for the 100-300 to swap it for my ageing EF 300 2.8, which in my opinion is showing its age on the R systems.

 

[Fischer]

Pricing is pretty easy to understand. You get 100mm extra reach. Aperture at the same focal lengths is essentially the same, it's smaller and lighter, and only $500 more than the EF 100-400 II, not $800. Is it expensive - of course. Is the EF 100-400 II expensive, well, yes it is. A really good pro lens is expensive, but people seem to forget - or just don't understand - that a lens like this will last for decades. So peole will buy a $4000 camera that they will probably replace in 4-6 years, but complain about a $2900 lens that will last 20-30 years. Go figure!

Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.

 

[Fischer]

I notice with that enthusiasts in Japan are speculating the price there may be <1,000,000 JPY ~7.500USD. Seems unlikely to me, but if so I'll be ordering mine from Tokyo (if it meets the hyped marketing claims). There have been some large white lenses in the past where the price difference between Japan and the US was significant, but it seems to me that Canon is more careful with its global pricing now.

 

[whothafunk]

Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.

Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) say to me his IS malfunctioned on his big white lens, or even the 70-200 2.8L, and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.

 

[Fischer]

Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) that would say to me IS malfunctioned on his big white lens and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.

You are welcome to contact Lens Rentals on your vast experience.

 

[whothafunk]

You are welcome to contact Lens Rentals on your vast experience.

Dude, I don't care about Lens Rentals. I care about what people with zero experience spew around here and lash onto "i read that someone said something".

 

[scyrene]

f7.1 aperture of 100-500

Your other points may be valid but this undermines your overall argument - 500mm f/7.1 is almost exactly the same physical aperture as 400mm f/5.6 (any difference is within the rounding error). How can adding 100mm on to the long end of a tele zoom be a drawback? (Especially as by all accounts it's without compromising image quality). It's misleading to keep stating the aperture ratio as if they've made the newer lens slower, when they absolutely haven't.

 

[scyrene]

Call me skeptical - but: Not even considering this before I have seen "proof" it is on par with the 300mm IS L II prime.

If it magically does this feat - AND its not a "disguised" 100-260/270/280mm lens - AND is lighter than the 300mm IS L II prime I will probably sell my RF 70-200mm IS L to fund part of the cost and be done with it.

I put the likelihood of Canon delivering a lens living up to the extraordinary claims announced <20%. Of course happy to be proven wrong one day soon.

At that price I would expect it to meet or exceed even the highest expectations.

 

[photographer]

Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) say to me his IS malfunctioned on his big white lens, or even the 70-200 2.8L, and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.

How old are their lenses?

 

[whothafunk]

How old are their lenses?

Many are still on the first version of EF 400L 2.8 IS USM and 300L 2.8 IS USM (as second or third owner even), as well as the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II (i dislike my RF 70-200 2.8, the zoom ring is too stiff for fast action sports and it's also the main reason why many wont transition from EF 70-200 to RF 70-200). These lenses are legendary and should not be compared to amateur IS lenses.